Your taking the video entirely out of context. Money is a motivator, the speaker even says so at 4:50: "Money is a motivator, FACT!".

The point is that encouraging employees using high rewards (not specific to money, rewards in general) for non-algorithmic tasks do not lead to better performance. That people do want money; but they also want other things too.

He says "Money is a motivator, FACT!".
Then he continiues to say "But in a slightly strange way".

...

And then he basically goes on to demonstrate the point, which is that once you pay people enough that they aren't thinking about money, anything above that actually becomes... if not demotivational, then an obstacle rather than a boost.
It basically means that anything above what is needed for peple to provide for themselves and their family, in terms of money, is a negative factor rather than a positive one.

Exactly. So much for financial bonuses.
He says so himself in the video. "This is not the sort of thing that I would have done three years ago before I knew this research. I would have said 'You want people to be creative and innovative? Give them a fricking innovation bonus!"

This also doesn't match up with marxist ideals at all. His point is that you need to give people the ability to have more responsibility and the chance to be more creative; to be able to have a 'purpose' in a company. That it's this which raises performance.

Under a communist regime you have the opposite; the state provides and takes decisions for you. In turn your expected to be a productive member of society. You have less purpose and less opportunities to be creative.

It does. Because it disproves the idea that different people 'need' to be paid differently because some work more/harder than others.

Under a communist regime you have the opposite; the state provides and takes decisions for you. In turn your expected to be a productive member of society. You have less purpose and less opportunities to be creative.

Marx was actually always quite vague about what an ideal communist society would be like. One thing that's for sure is that the state would most likely be dissolved (otherwise it wouldn't be a true communist society, at least not the way Marx described it).
One thing he WAS clear on though, was that he wanted man to utilize his full potential as a creative, producing human being. And that is not achieved in today's system for the majority of people, however you look at it.
Marx was an avid fan of freeing people from having to sell their labour to the highest bidder, thereby making them free to control what to do with their time.
Thus, you'd have situations like in the Australian company, where people created bugfixes or came up with new programs that solves new problems because they had time in which to utilize their full potential.

Afr0 It does. Because it disproves the idea that different people 'need' to be paid differently because some work more/harder than others.

This is the thing though, that is NOT what the video said. It said money is a factor, and you need to be paid enough to get the issue 'off the table'. He did not say that people didn't care about money!

If I work harder, then I expect to be paid more. Most people would agree with this.

Plus I could easily turn around and say this is a very capitalist film. It shows how to get more from your employees for less pay. Most bosses would want to know about that!

This is the thing though, that is NOT what the video said. It said money is a factor, and you need to be paid enough to get the issue 'off the table'.

But then it went on to say that if you pay beyond that, efficiency actually decreases.
You could speculate that different kinds of work needs different kinds of payment to get the issue 'off the table', but that would be speculation.

Plus I could easily turn around and say this is a very capitalist film. It shows how to get more from your employees for less pay. Most bosses would want to know about that!

Well, if that is capitalism, then I propose it is a good idea. Less money for everyone means more money to go around. Maybe the cantina could be extended to include a cinema!
Generally though, the boss(es) are the one(s) that should be making less money, not the workers.
The video also makes a point out of getting rid of bosses. He says "Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement, self-direction is better!".

It seems you have conflicting interests Afr0. You've ranted before about how capitalism screws employees by making them work harder and pay them less and now you're endorsing it.

People do NOT deserve to be paid the same. Some jobs require special skills, some are more risky, some are easier. You deserve to be paid for your effort and skills. You propose a lot of ideas about how the world should work, but it would create a very dysfunctional world.

Corporations do one thing very well: make money. And before you complain about this, don't forget that money is what makes the world go round. Governments have proven countless times that they can't efficiently make money. If we put them in charge, the price of everything would skyrocket and there would be economic collapse. There is a reason the world works the way it does: it works very well.

A fair and balanced world will never exist as long as humans exist. The mind at its core is constantly competing with others. It's a fundamental human trait--survival of the fittest.

It seems you have conflicting interests Afr0. You've ranted before about how capitalism screws employees by making them work harder and pay them less and now you're endorsing it.

Mainly because in capitalism, everyone works hard, yet some earn more than others.

People do NOT deserve to be paid the same. Some jobs require special skills, some are more risky, some are easier. You deserve to be paid for your effort and skills. You propose a lot of ideas about how the world should work, but it would create a very dysfunctional world.

Governments have proven countless times that they can't efficiently make money. If we put them in charge, the price of everything would skyrocket and there would be economic collapse. There is a reason the world works the way it does: it works very well.

This is one thing we agree on: The government should be dissolved (or at least be reduced to a minimal capacity). But we disagree on the why and how. Marx believed that the government should own all businesses and corporations in order to grow wealthy enough to eventually sustain a Communist state. In some states today, like Norway for instance, this isn't even neccessary. The state is already wealthy enough.
But there must still be a revolution by the people, for the people, in order to remove power from all business owners and thus make sure that everyone starts off on an equal footing. Only then can the wealth of the state be distributed, as Marx put it, 'on an as-needed basis' (providing one works to ones capacity).

Afr0 "Mainly because in capitalism, everyone works hard, yet some earn more than others."

I'd highly disagree. Some of us are hard workers, some of us are lazy. Some people come in to work and give 200% and some give just enough to not get fired. Paying everyone differently allows employers to encourage good behavior.

I feel like communism is the worst possible solution. That would make the government more massive than we have ever seen.

I've always had this idea for a "minimum standard of living". Using this model, the government would declare things every citizen is entitled to (basic healthcare, food, basic shelter, etc). A human should be able to stay healthy and safe in this program. Any citizen would be permitted to use these resources without question. This gives you a safety net that you can always fall back on. The biggest problem I see in the US is that we don't have programs to help everyone. When you have an unpredictable economy, you need this. People stave, can't get medical attention, and live on the streets because they can't find work. Unacceptable.

I fully agree. But capitalism not being perfect does not mean that communism works.

If you look back over the last century, the only successful communist countries are those which have made great market reforms (such as China, Vietnam, Laos and very recently Cuba). They are really 'State Capitalist', and even then are moving further and further away from this.

In contrast capitalist countries have been shown to be far more successful. The best transport, health care systems and schools are all in non-communist countries.

This video shows science has proved that paying people more encourages bad behaviour, not vice versa.

That would make the government more massive than we have ever seen.

You have no basis for saying that.
None of the so-called communist societies that have existed so far have been truly communist. Soviet came close, but they started off with the worst possible society that they could have started with (essentially a feudal one).
That, the fact that they had to wage multiple wars while still building society and Stalin's powerhunger were the combined reasons why they failed.

If you look back over the last century, the only successful communist countries are those which have made great market reforms (such as China, Vietnam, Laos and very recently Cuba). They are really 'State Capitalist', and even then are moving further and further away from this.

Read what I wrote above.

For more information, I'd suggest reading Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton. It basically shatters all critical questions about Marx' thoughts into smithereens.

"This video shows science has proved that paying people more encourages bad behaviour, not vice versa."

I've actually studied this concept before you made this post. The problem is, this has nothing to do with communism.

Here is the one thing you have to understand about governments vs companies. Governments thrive when change is slow and predictable. Companies thrive when change is rapid and unpredictable. They are entirely incompatible.

"You have no basis for saying that."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a government controlling all businesses would need to be massive and powerful. Who is in favor of more government control?

I think it's important to add to what Afr0 said there that this isn't, or shouldn't be, a top-down government; it should be bottom-up. It will be massive and powerful because every worker will take part in the organisation of their workplace, i.e. a system of soviets, workers' councils or more direct trade unions.

When a "provisional" government is set up after a revolution, as was the case in Russia, or in the case of the military seizing power after the 2011 Egyptian People's Revolution, the revolutionaries should demand "all power to the soviets"! In Egypt, this could be the new democratic Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions.

With millions of 'soviets', you will just have chaos. So ultimately you need individuals to run this, which defeats the argument as your back to a top-down structure (a few individuals running it from the top).

Not really. You still have elected officials to represent each soviet at a higher level, but there will be mechanisms such as instant recall, elected officials standing on a workers' wage, etc, preventing elitism.

I have zero interest in a single-salary country. In America, I can work my ass off and be wildly successful and rich. I can also be lazy and relaxed and make less. My government has no business telling me what to do with my life and I sure as hell don't want them putting a cap on how successful I can be. Some of the greatest innovations in the world come from America. Our model isn't perfect, but it sure isn't bad.

I think most people agree with me. It's usually the lower classes that are for socialism because it would give them an automatic pay raise with no work. I would consider myself in the lower class. Most of the lower class is there because they prefer to play video games and get drunk (or other wasteful activities) instead of working hard. I have little sympathy for those kind of people. Why should they be compensated the same as someone who works hard? I live in a country where I can be successful if I am willing to put forth effort. You can't get much more fair than this.

That being said, I think we should support the needy, but only for basic survival. Everytime the US creates a program that gives a little extra, it becomes severely abused by the lower class. (Such as food stamps being used to buy junk food or welfare supporting peoples drug habits.)

Most of the lower class is there because they prefer to play video games and get drunk (or other wasteful activities) instead of working hard

In fairness, that's hardly a working-class problem. Boris Johnson, George Osborne and David Cameron, all members of the Bullingdon Club, got drunk and trashed luxury 5-star hotels. In Boris Johnson's own words:

""We got drunk, trashed the Ritz <probably the UK's top hotel> & then went down Piccadilly to loot a few items from Fortnums <luxury goods store>"

Now one is Mayor of London, one is Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other is Prime Minister, and peaceful protesters who occupied Fortnums were arrested and branded by Boris as rioters.

If you or me really did live in a country where there really was equal opportunity to succeed, I would be much more in favour. But I think we've argued on that point before.

Also I have to admit I haven't actually watched the video yet, but anything arguing for less money for workers sounds dodgy to me.

Afr0
[quote=HoboBen]but anything arguing for less money for workers sounds dodgy to me.

Quoted for truth.
Quoted for hypocrisy. You were in favor of the video, you held it up as an example of proving that Marxism is correct. Now your saying it's dodgy???

But again the video is _NOT_ about workers pay, it is about bonuses and how workers are motivated at work! It's like comparing the wholesale cost of apples to how you go about display oranges. These are entirely different topics.

@Ben, I fully agree with you. But I also think that is a separate issue to workers pay.

"Less money for everyone means more money to go around. Maybe the cantina could be extended to include a cinema!
Generally though, the boss(es) are the one(s) that should be making less money, not the workers."

Ideally though, noone should have to worry about money. Ideally it should be abandoned as a means of bargainingship.

Just to clarify, bosses are also workers. And there are different groups of workers. Typically those earning in the higher reaches tend to start on earning more and then just keep on earning more and more and more. This is clearly wrong.
But what this video shows more than anything is that it is time that money was abandoned as an incentive altogether.
That is very much in line with Marx' thinking.